Metal Gear playing order?

[achuso]

In which order should one play the MG series? Asking for friend))

[﷽ DavidLonglivelle]

Game release order is the best.

Metal Gear,
Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake,
Metal Gear Solid,
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty,
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater,
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of Patriot,
Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker,
Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes,
Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain.

[achuso]

Originally posted by Pras:

Game release order is the best.

Metal Gear,
Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake,
Metal Gear Solid,
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty,
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater,
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of Patriot,
Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker,
Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes,
Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain.

Thank you very much! Do you know if I can play these on emulators on PC with no problems, or is a secodn hand PS2 worth buying at this point? And where is Metal Gear Rising Revengeance?

[b o b]

Revengeance is a title set after MGS4 and isn't really impactful to the plot of the rest of the "Solid" series. As for a platform you could play it all on, I did it all on PS3, all games are available on it.

[Bite]

If you actually want to play in canon order, then the series goes:

1. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
2. Metal Gear Portable Ops (Not really hugely important, it's mostly non-canon).
3. Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker
4. Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes
5. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain
6. Metal Gear 1
7. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake
8. Metal Gear Solid 1
9. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
10. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
11. Metal Gear Rising. Revengeance

Most of them run fine on emulators (except 4, and 3 can be a tad tricky to get going), but IMO if you can get a PS3 then you can get all of the main pre MGSV (Minus MGS1 and Portable Ops) games in one package.

[Seamus]

Originally posted by Bite:

If you actually want to play in canon order, then the series goes:

1. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
2. Metal Gear Portable Ops (Not really hugely important, it's mostly non-canon).
3. Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker
4. Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes
5. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain
6. Metal Gear 1
7. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake
8. Metal Gear Solid 1
9. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
10. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
11. Metal Gear Rising. Revengeance

Most of them run fine on emulators (except 4, and 3 can be a tad tricky to get going), but IMO if you can get a PS3 then you can get all of the main pre MGSV (Minus MGS1 and Portable Ops) games in one package.

Said it before and I'll say it again: Chronological order is the worst way to play the series. Even playing them in reverse release order would be better.

[Bite]

Originally posted by Seamus:

Originally posted by Bite:

If you actually want to play in canon order, then the series goes:

1. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
2. Metal Gear Portable Ops (Not really hugely important, it's mostly non-canon).
3. Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker
4. Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes
5. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain
6. Metal Gear 1
7. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake
8. Metal Gear Solid 1
9. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
10. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
11. Metal Gear Rising. Revengeance

Most of them run fine on emulators (except 4, and 3 can be a tad tricky to get going), but IMO if you can get a PS3 then you can get all of the main pre MGSV (Minus MGS1 and Portable Ops) games in one package.

Said it before and I'll say it again: Chronological order is the worst way to play the series. Even playing them in reverse release order would be better.

Each one to their own.

[﷽ DavidLonglivelle]

Originally posted by le tank:

Thank you very much! Do you know if I can play these on emulators on PC with no problems, or is a secodn hand PS2 worth buying at this point? And where is Metal Gear Rising Revengeance?

You can find the web/PC version of:
Metal Gear;
Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake;
PS1: Metal Gear Solid;
PS2: Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (Substance).

And the rest is better on the original/console version (or use emulator, if you own the game):
PS2: Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (Subsistance);
PS3: Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of Patriot;
PSP: Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker;

Spinoff:
PSP: Metal Gear Acid;
PSP: Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops;
PS3/PC: Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance.

Like wayfarer said, if you own a PS3, you can buy Metal Gear Solid: The Legacy Collection. It contains most of the series from the first game up to Peace Walker. There is an updated version of Snake Eater for 3DS and just recently NVIDIA's Shield TV. (yeah, i just copy & paste my answer from other post asking the same question :P)

Originally posted by Bite:

Originally posted by Seamus:

Said it before and I'll say it again: Chronological order is the worst way to play the series. Even playing them in reverse release order would be better.

Each one to their own.

Considering how the controller works, TBH chronological order is the worst. Well, everyone have their own preference so...

[Bite]

Originally posted by Pras:

Considering how the controller works, TBH chronological order is the worst. Well, everyone have their own preference so...

Sure, controllers aren't an issue for me.

[Misa]

The mgs series is build upon each new releases.. Playing each one in release order therefore is the most logical thing to do because tou become better familiar with gameplay mechanics and controls.

MGS4 for example have flash backs that help players understand the story better..

MGS 3 have some MGS 2 references that only people who have played MGS 2 could understand.

You are missing the creator's true intention if you play them out of release order.

[Bite]

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

The mgs series is build upon each new releases.. Playing each one in release order therefore is the most logical thing to do because tou become better familiar with gameplay mechanics and controls.

MGS4 for example have flash backs that help players understand the story better..

MGS 3 have some MGS 2 references that only people who have played MGS 2 could understand.

You are missing the creator's true intention if you play them out of release order.

The creator's "true" intention was to stop at MGS2, though.

All in all, whether you value progression in mechanics more than the overall plot is up to you as a player.

[Misa]

Originally posted by Bite:

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

The mgs series is build upon each new releases.. Playing each one in release order therefore is the most logical thing to do because tou become better familiar with gameplay mechanics and controls.

MGS4 for example have flash backs that help players understand the story better..

MGS 3 have some MGS 2 references that only people who have played MGS 2 could understand.

You are missing the creator's true intention if you play them out of release order.

The creator's "true" intention was to stop at MGS2, though.

All in all, whether you value progression in mechanics more than the overall plot is up to you as a player.

well then lets not make a discussion because everything is entitled to opinion and who cares mentality.... i think what you said is pretty obvious...

I don't think one would appreciate older MGS games if they were to play them out of release orders... and of course that is my FREAKING opinion ( there I said it)

and just because the creator wanted to stop at MGS 2 doesn't make every other games in the series less relevant..

[Bite]

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

well then lets not make a discussion because everything is entitled to opinion and who cares mentality.... i think what you said is pretty obvious...

I didn't say that. What I pointed out was that there could effectively be two ways to approach play order. Overall plot and evolution in gameplay mechanics, if anything I was agreeing with you. Sorry if it didn't came across that way.

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

I don't think one would appreciate older MGS games if they were to play them out of release orders... and of course that is my FREAKING opinion ( there I said it)

That's quite ok.

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

and just because the creator wanted to stop at MGS 2 doesn't make every other games in the series less relevant..

I didn't mean that. I was providing another viewpoint to your statement.

[Misa]

stop spreading lies to new comers just because you think your opinion is more important than others.



Playing them in chronological order goes against the point of releasing them how konami and kojima productions have. nobody watches star wars episode 1, 2, and 3 first. same thing.

The original metal gear games aren't really necessary imo. they aren't that great and you're filled in on most of the needed details throughout mgs1.

In terms of the MGS series, play them in the order of their release. Obviously that's how they developed them, so they expected people to play them in that order. So even if MGS3 goes back in the timeline, there are references to characters and events that happened in the two previous games. I guess it's not incredibly necessary to play them this way, but for me it just makes sense, it's the way Kojima intended it so I dare not argue with him. Plus you definitely want to play all of them before you get to 4 anyway, because that one ties them all together rather elegantly. Plus there are a ton of flashback moments that make a lot more sense if you've played the others.

I will never get this question with any series. Every series is meant to be played/watched in release order. The whole reason prequels are appealing is because you have that background knowledge and there's always hints of the future in them that can make them straight up spoiler territory in some cases. So yeah release order.

Bite

[Grandmaster HellSpaWn]

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

stop spreading lies to new comers just because you think your opinion is more important than others. :ltt:



:exclamationPointRed:Playing them in chronological order goes against the point of releasing them how konami and kojima productions have. nobody watches star wars episode 1, 2, and 3 first. same thing.

:exclamationPointRed:The original metal gear games aren't really necessary imo. they aren't that great and you're filled in on most of the needed details throughout mgs1. :Furrowed:

:exclamationPointRed:In terms of the MGS series, play them in the order of their release. Obviously that's how they developed them, so they expected people to play them in that order. So even if MGS3 goes back in the timeline, there are references to characters and events that happened in the two previous games. I guess it's not incredibly necessary to play them this way, but for me it just makes sense, it's the way Kojima intended it so I dare not argue with him. Plus you definitely want to play all of them before you get to 4 anyway, because that one ties them all together rather elegantly. Plus there are a ton of flashback moments that make a lot more sense if you've played the others.

:exclamationPointRed: I will never get this question with any series. Every series is meant to be played/watched in release order. The whole reason prequels are appealing is because you have that background knowledge and there's always hints of the future in them that can make them straight up spoiler territory in some cases. So yeah release order. :b_star:

Bite :gtfo: :manekineko::taloslol:

XD your logic xD. GAMES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER NOT IN RELEASE ORDER.

[Bite]

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

stop spreading lies to new comers just because you think your opinion is more important than others. :ltt:

I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I don't think in any way, shape or form that my opinion or input is more valuable than yours or that of anyone else's in this discussion.

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

:exclamationPointRed:Playing them in chronological order goes against the point of releasing them how konami and kojima productions have. nobody watches star wars episode 1, 2, and 3 first. same thing.

I think we can both agree there was no "intended point" in their release order? I mean most of the sequels were more of a mixture of strange situations that led to their respective developments. You can clearly see in MGS2's ending that it was meant to stop there, not much of what happens there makes any sense given the continuity that was provided in 4.

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

:exclamationPointRed:The original metal gear games aren't really necessary imo. they aren't that great and you're filled in on most of the needed details throughout mgs1. :Furrowed:

I never said anyone should play -all- the games in chronological order, just that there is one chronological order which could be played. Wether one leaves MG1 and 2 outside is perfectly ok.

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

:exclamationPointRed:In terms of the MGS series, play them in the order of their release. Obviously that's how they developed them, so they expected people to play them in that order. So even if MGS3 goes back in the timeline, there are references to characters and events that happened in the two previous games. I guess it's not incredibly necessary to play them this way, but for me it just makes sense, it's the way Kojima intended it so I dare not argue with him. Plus you definitely want to play all of them before you get to 4 anyway, because that one ties them all together rather elegantly. Plus there are a ton of flashback moments that make a lot more sense if you've played the others.

Again, I don't disagree you can play them that way. In the chronological order 4 is right there at the end, just before Rising which is easily something you can leave aside.

:exclamationPointRed: I will never get this question with any series. Every series is meant to be played/watched in release order. The whole reason prequels are appealing is because you have that background knowledge and there's always hints of the future in them that can make them straight up spoiler territory in some cases. So yeah release order. :b_star: [/quote]

I think that's a rather narrow view, but if that's how you like them then great. I myself don't really feel most things should be played-seen in chronological order either, but I do support the notion that doing so with MGS gives it's own kind of perspective given the decades of history the games have been built upon.

Originally posted by ⎛⎝DΞΛDLY_DIVΛ⎠⎞:

Bite :gtfo: :manekineko::taloslol:

Hey, I'm sorry if I'm annoying you, that's not my intention, but this is an open forum and I don't have to "gtfo".